Journal of Threatened
Taxa | www.threatenedtaxa.org | 26 March 2025 | 17(3): 26655–26668
ISSN 0974-7907 (Online)
| ISSN 0974-7893 (Print)
https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9433.17.3.26655-26668
#9433 | Received 21
September 2024 | Final received 13 March 2025 | Finally accepted 17 March 2025
A checklist of fishes
of Haiderpur wetland, western Uttar Pradesh, India
Rahul Rana- 1 , Jeyaraj Antony Johnson- 2 & Syed Ainul
Hussain- 3
1,2,3 Wildlife Institute of
India, Post Box
#18, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttarakhand 248001,
India.
1 rahuldoon786@gmail.com,
2 jaj@wii.gov.in (corresponding author), 3 ainul.hussain@gmail.com
Editor: Pranay Punj
Pankaj, Nagaland University, Lumami, India.
Date of publication: 26 March 2025 (online & print)
Citation: Rana-, R., J.A. Johnson- & S.A. Hussain- (2025). A checklist of fishes of Haiderpur
wetland, western Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of
Threatened Taxa 17(3): 26655–26668. https://doi.org/10.11609/jott.9433.17.3.26655-26668
Copyright: © Rana- et al. 2025. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. JoTT allows unrestricted use, reproduction, and
distribution of this article in any medium by providing adequate credit to the
author(s) and the source of publication.
Funding: This research was conducted as part of the projects “ Biodiversity Conservation and Ganga Rejuvenation” and “Planning for Aquatic Species Conservation and Maintenance of Ecosystem Services in the Ganga River Basin,” which received funding (Nos.B-02/2015-16/1259/NMCG-WII
PROPOSAL and B-03/2015-16/1077/NMCG-NEW
PROPOSAL) from the National Mission for Clean (NMCG), Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India.
Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Author details: Rahul Rana is a research scholar actively engaged in ichthyofaunal assessment of the Ganga River Basin in Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani Dehradun. J.A. Johnson is scientist-F in Wildlife Institute of India, and Syed Ainul Hussain is project manager and former Scientist-G Wildlife Institute of India.
Author contributions: RR surveyed the study site and collected samples, identification and JAJ and SAH supervised the work and interpreted taxonomic information
gathered by the RR.
Acknowledgements: The authors gratefully acknowledges the financial support from National Mission For Clean Ganga. Our sincere appreciation to Shri G.Asok Kumar, director general (DG) of NMCG, as well as Mr. Rajiv Ranjan MIshra and Mr.Upendra Prasad Singh, former DGs and their dedicated teams for their invaluable funding support. We extend our gratitude to the chief wildlife wardens of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan , Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal for their timely provision of research permits and facilitation, which were crucial for the sucessful completion of this study. We extend our gratitude to the director and dean of the Wildlife Institute of India for their assistance and cooperation in the smooth conduct of the study.
Abstract: River-associated
floodplains and wetlands provide natural spawning and nursery grounds for many
freshwater fishes. Haiderpur wetland is one of such
important river-associated wetlands of the Ganga River located in Bijnor District of western Uttar Pradesh. Considering its
ecological significance, an inventory of fish species inhabiting in the Haiderpur wetland was carried out between June and July
2020. A total of 57 species of fishes belonging to 44 genera, 10 orders, and 27
families were recorded. Three exotic species, namely, Hypothalmichthys
molitrix, Oreochromis niloticus, and Ctenopharyngodon idella,
were recorded from the wetland. Based on the fish record, a checklist of the
fish species of the Haiderpur wetland is being
prepared and presented herewith with updated information on the current valid
names, vernacular names, and IUCN Red List status.
Keywords: Exotic species, fish
diversity, freshwater, floodplains, Ganga River, ichthyofauna, river
associated, spawning, threatened fish, vernacular.
INTRODUCTION
Wetlands are amidst the most productive ecosystems on
the Earth and provide many vital services to human society (Ghermandi
et al. 2010; Brink et al. 2012). Wetlands also play a valuable role as breeding
grounds for a wide variety of species of fish and other invertebrates. In any
wetland, fish typically represent a significant biological part, playing a
critical role in energy flow between lower and higher trophic levels and
control energy and nutrient-flow via predation. It also serves as a valuable
fishery resource for the local community residing around the wetlands.
In India, the Gangetic plain has many large-sized
natural and man-made wetlands, which are connected with the Ganga River during
the monsoon months and serve as flood buffering systems. In addition to that,
they form a natural reserve for maintaining fish genetic resources. Haiderpur wetland is one of those wetlands located in the
floodplain region of the Upper Ganga basin in western Uttar Pradesh. The
wetland is ecologically important since it provides refugia habitats to many
freshwater organisms, including fishes and is hydrologically different because
of slow-moving water creates favorable conditions for many lentic organisms.
This wetland is a trove in terms of fish species and supports the livelihood of
many people living around the wetland. Even though it is a well-known aquatic
habitat, there is no comprehensive information on the Ichthyofauna species
associated with this wetland. Thus, an intensive survey was carried out from
June 2020 to July 2020 to prepare the fish checklist in this wetland. A
checklist of fish species residing in this wetland and their current
conservation status is presented in this communication. We also provide
site-specific catch per unit efforts so that this information can be used as a
baseline for future fish conservation efforts in the region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area
Haiderpur wetland is a
man-made wetland that came into existence in 1984 after the construction of
Madhya Ganga barrage on the mighty Ganga River and it falls in Muzaffarnagar District and also part of Hastinapur Wildlife
Sanctuary (HWS) of western Uttar Pradesh (Image 1). It lies in the Upper
Gangetic Plains biogeographic zone (7A) of India in the state of Uttar Pradesh
(Rodgers & Panwar 1988). This wetland comprises of 3,000 acres and
adjoining 1,532 ha of the forest area of different blocks of Haiderpur, Nizampur, Jedhpur, Gorsiwal, Kasampur, Eashqwala, and Nawalpur. It includes various deep upstream reservoirs of
Madhya Ganga Barrage, associated shallow flooded land, stretches of river Ganga
and its tributary, river Solani. Six sampling
locations were fixed randomly depending on the accessibility for exploring fish
diversity in the wetland (Image 1). GPS coordinates of sampling sites and the
mean depth of sampling points are given in Table 1.
The population composition of wetland areas comprises
of Bengali fisherman community and gurjars primarily
engaged in fishing for their livelihoods.
Fish Sampling
Our sampling sites are situated mostly in the southern
part of the Wetland because of accessibility and other practical constraints.
Importantly, our sites are well-distributed in the space to represent the
wetland well. Fish sampling was conducted in the selected sampling points using
180 m long mono-filamentous gill nets of various mesh sizes measuring (0.5 inch, 1 inch, 2 inch, 3 inch, 4 inch, 5 inch, 10 inch
and 12 inch). Cast net and trap nets were also used. An average of 4 net/hours
was given continuously for 10 days from 0600 h to 0800 h, and 1600 h to 1800 h,
and each site was sampled twice, once in the morning and then in the evening
during the monsoon months (July 2020). Constant fishing efforts using all the
six different gill nets for equal duration were maintained throughout the
sampling period. Different types of fishing gears used are given in Image 2.
After the sampling, fishes were collected, and they
were photographed using a digital SLR Camera -Nikon D5300. Colour,
colour patterns, spots/blotches, stripes, and other
characteristics of the fishes were noted in the field. Some of the unidentified
fishes were preserved in a 10% formalin solution for species confirmation. All
specimens were deposited in the National Repository Museum of Wildlife Institute
of India, Dehradun. The species were identified in the laboratory using the
taxonomic keys of Talwar & Jhingaran (1991), Jayaram
(2010), and Bleher (2018). Valid species and valid
nomenclatural names were adopted as per the Catalogue of Fishes of the California
Academy of Sciences (Frickie et al. 2018). The
current conservation status of fishes was accessed from IUCN Red List data
(IUCN 2021). A checklist of fishes recorded in the Haiderpur
wetland is presented in Table 2. Catch per unit efforts (CPUE) was calculated
as the number of captured fishes per hour in all applied gill nets.
Results
The present study revealed that 57 species of fishes
belonging to 44 genera, 10 orders, and 27 families inhabit in Haiderpur wetland. Cyprinidae was
the most abundant family with 13 species, followed by Bagridae
with five species (Images 4–60). The checklist presented in this study
represents the most updated list of freshwater fishes from the Haiderpur wetland compared to the earlier studies conducted
in the entire Bijnor district. Prior to this study,
only the presence of 36 fishes from the Bijnor
District has been reported by (Khan et al. 2013). The present study includes
economically important fish species like Wallago attu,
Chitala chitala,
Notopterus notopterus,
Bagarius bagarius.
The other significant findings of the study reveal that many species like Labeo bata, Wallago
attu, Notopterus
notopterus, Ophicthys
cuchia are of high ecological significance since
it is valued remedy in oriental medicine (Ray 1988). The study, however, has
also been able to detect the presence of some of the exotic species of fishes
such as Cyprinus carpio,
Hypothalmichthys molitrix, Ctenopharyngodon idella,
and Oreochromis niloticus, which are
disturbing the habitat for the native fish species by competing in terms of
food, space and tolerant extreme conditions. Haiderpur
wetland inhabits nearly half of the freshwater fish species reported from the
main Ganga River. Recent studies revealed that main course of Ganga River
inhabits 117 species of native freshwater species (Dwivedi et al. 2019).
Haiderpur wetland, like any
other wetland has an almost entirely tropical climate 29o N
surrounded by the human settlements. In the process of rapid urbanisation, various species are going under mass
extinction from their native habitats (Mckinney
2002). Among 57 species of fishes recorded from Haiderpur
wetland, only three species, namely, Chitala
chitala, Ompok
pabda, and Bagarius
bagarius, were found to be in ‘Near Threatened’
category of IUCN Red List 2021, whereas three were exotic species, and only one
species namely, Clarias magur
was found to be in IUCN Red List ‘Endangered’ category and the remaining 50
fish species were in IUCN Red List ‘Least Concern’ category. Habitat
degradation and anthropogenic pressure like cultivation of water chestnut and
use of chemicals by farmers have seriously affected the fish fauna of the
entire Haiderpur wetland. During the survey, various
types of invasive weeds, e.g., Pontederia, Pistia, Hydrilla spp., and Potamogeton, have adversely affected the wetland by
encroaching and disturbing the fish habitat (Image 3).
Wallago attu and Chitala chitala which
thrives well and hides in the submerged aquatic vegetation and Haiderpur wetland, therefore, provides the suitable
habitat. Bagarius bagarius
are amongst some of the indicator species depicting the pristine habitat of the
wetland serving as the breeding grounds and sustaining large fish population.
On the other hand, few areas are under stress due to the effluent and sewage
discharge compelling only species like Trichogaster
fasciata and T. lalia
surviving in those areas. For long-term monitoring and conservation of
wetlands and sustaining aquatic species curbing the challenges in wetland
conservation will play a key role in maintaining a healthy ecosystem for the
fish population.
Relative Abundance
Relative abundance showed abundance of small-sized
indigenous species in the study area. The most abundant species as per relative
abundance was Amblypharyngodon mola having relative abundance of 0.30, followed by Puntius
sophore 0.16, Trichogaster
lalius 0.15, and Trichogaster
fasciatus 0.13.
Catch per unit efforts
CPUE was observed maximum at site-6 – 114.55 and
minimum at site-1 – 4.
Family wise representation (pie chart) of individual
species at each site is presented in Figure 1.
Discussion
Haiderpur wetland is a variegated wetland of swampy
vegetation and tall grasses. Floodplain wetlands are one of the most productive
and species-rich lacustrine ecosystems (Kingsford et al. 2016). It also forms
an important site for the conservation of water birds and swamp deer. Previous
studies conducted in Banganga wetland (Sivakumar
2017), recorded presence of 40 fish species during the survey whereas Khan et
al. (2013) reported presence of only 36 fish species from the entire Bijnor District. Therefore, the present study carried out
in the Haiderpur wetland reveals the unexplored
diversity which is a first of its kind since it has not been assessed in terms
of fish diversity earlier. No previous studies have been conducted explicitly
in the Haiderpur wetland.
This distinctive hydrological system and having a
variety of submerged aquatic vegetation provides suitable breeding grounds and
habitat for fish populations an ichthyological baseline inventory of Red Listed
species of the wetland and for biodiversity conservation point of view. It also
provides unreported and unexplored diversity of fish species and scope for
trend analysis of the population of these fish species in the future. It is
imperative that the sites, where threatened species are recorded should be
monitored regularly for future. On the other hand
local anthropogenic pressures like seasonal cultivation of water chestnut by
locals and use of chemicals in the crops gets washed off directly into the
wetland, grazing of cattle during the dry spell are other local disturbances
affecting the wetland. Merging of the domestic effluents during floods directly
into the wetland adds to the threats. Educational tours and tourism activities
also provide revenue generation which can be utilised
for more upgradation of the wetland and awareness of aquatic flora and fauna
residing in the wetland.
Table 1. Details of
fish sampling locations in Haiderpur wetland, western
Uttar Pradesh.
|
|
Site |
GPS coordinates |
Mean depth (m) |
|
|
Latitude (N) |
Longitude (E) |
|||
|
1 |
Site 1 |
29.3797 |
78.0287 |
2.9 |
|
2 |
Site 2 |
29.3781 |
78.0299 |
3.4 |
|
3 |
Site 3 |
29.3723 |
78.0031 |
2.1 |
|
4 |
Site 4 |
29.3827 |
78.0225 |
1.8 |
|
5 |
Site 5 |
29.3858 |
78.0320 |
1.5 |
|
6 |
Site 6 |
29.3918 |
78.0190 |
3.2 |
Table 2. Site wise
catch per unit effort values.
|
|
Site no. |
Mean CPUE (fish/h) |
|
1 |
S1 |
4 |
|
2 |
S2 |
15.25 |
|
3 |
S3 |
83 |
|
4 |
S4 |
14 |
|
5 |
S5 |
5.5 |
|
6 |
S6 |
114.5 |
Table 3. Checklist of
fish species of Haiderpur wetland.
|
|
English name |
Species |
Authority |
Vernacular name |
IUCN Red List |
|
I. ORDER
OSTEOGLOSSIFORMES |
|||||
|
1. Family Notopteridae |
|||||
|
1 |
Bronze Featherback |
Notopterus notopterus |
(Pallas, 1769) |
Pholi |
LC |
|
2 |
Clown Knifefish |
Chitala chitala |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Chital |
NT |
|
2.Family Clupeidae |
|||||
|
3 |
Indian River Shad |
Gudusia chapra |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Suiya |
LC |
|
II. ORDER
CYPRINIFORMES |
|||||
|
3. Family Cobitidae |
|||||
|
4 |
Guntia Loach |
Lepidocephalichthys guntea |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Guntea |
LC |
|
4. Family Nemacheilidae |
|||||
|
5 |
Mottled Loach |
Paracanthocobitis botia |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Chitai |
LC |
|
5. Family Cyprinidae |
|||||
|
6 |
Mrigal Carp |
Cirrhinus mrigala |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Mrigal |
LC |
|
7 |
Reba Carp |
Cirrhinus reba |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Rewah |
LC |
|
8 |
Common Carp |
Cyprinus carpio |
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
- |
Exotic |
|
9 |
Bata |
Labeo bata |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Bhagan |
LC |
|
10 |
Orangefin Labeo |
Labeo calbasu |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Kalbons |
LC |
|
11 |
Kuria Labeo |
Labeo gonius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Khursa |
LC |
|
12 |
Roho Labeo |
Labeo rohita |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Rohu |
LC |
|
13 |
- |
Labeo dyocheilus |
(McClleland, 1839) |
Kali |
LC |
|
14 |
Rosy Barb |
Pethia conchonius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Pothi |
LC |
|
15 |
Ticto Barb |
Pethia ticto |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Pothia |
LC |
|
16 |
Pool barb |
Puntius sophore |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Pottiah |
LC |
|
17 |
Stone Roller |
Tariqilabeo latius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Kala bata |
LC |
|
18 |
|
Osteobrama cotio |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Cotio |
LC |
|
6. Family Danionidae |
|||||
|
19 |
Mola Carplet |
Amblypharyngodon mola |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Mola |
LC |
|
20 |
Morari |
Cabdio morar |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Morari |
LC |
|
21 |
Slender Rasbora |
Rasbora daniconius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Rasbora |
LC |
|
22 |
Large Razorbelly Minnow |
Salmostoma bacaila |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Chela |
LC |
|
7. Family Xenocyprinidae |
|||||
|
23 |
Grass Carp |
Ctenopharyngodon idella |
(Valenciennces, 1844) |
Carp |
Exotic |
|
24 |
Silver Carp |
Hypothalmichthys molitrix |
(Valenciennes,
1844) |
Silver |
Exotic |
|
III. ORDER
SILURIFORMES |
|||||
|
8. Family Bagridae |
|||||
|
25 |
Gangetic Mystus |
Mystus cavasius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Kavasi |
LC |
|
26 |
Tengara Catfish |
Mystus tengara |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Tengara |
LC |
|
27 |
Rita |
Rita rita |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Rita |
LC |
|
28 |
Long Whiskered
Catfish |
Sperata aor |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
- |
LC |
|
29 |
Giant River-Catfish |
Sperata lamarrii |
(Sykes, 1839) |
Seenghala |
LC |
|
9. Family Siluridae |
|||||
|
30 |
Pabdah Catfish |
Ompok pabda |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Pabda |
NT |
|
31 |
Wallago |
Wallago attu |
(Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
Parhin |
VU |
|
10.Family Amblyciptidae |
|||||
|
32 |
Biting Catfish |
Amblyceps mangois |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
- |
LC |
|
11. Family Sisoridae |
|||||
|
33 |
Goonch |
Bagarius bagarius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Goonch |
NT |
|
12.Family Erethistidae |
|||||
|
34 |
Giant Moth Catfish |
Erethistes pussilus |
(Muller & Troschel, 1849) |
- |
LC |
|
13.Family Clariidae |
|||||
|
35 |
Magur |
Clarias magur |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
- |
EN |
|
14. Family Heteropneustidae |
|||||
|
36 |
Stinging Catfish |
Heteropneustes fossilis |
(Bloch, 1794) |
Singhi |
LC |
|
15. Family Schilbidae |
|||||
|
37 |
Garua Bachcha |
Clupisoma garua |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Garua |
LC |
|
38 |
Vacha, Tunti |
Eutropiichthys vacha |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Bachwa |
LC |
|
IV. ORDER
SYNBRANCHIFORMES |
|||||
|
16. Family Mastacembelidae |
|||||
|
39 |
Lesser Spiny Eel |
Macrognathus aral |
(Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
Aral |
LC |
|
40 |
Barred Spiny Eel |
Macrognathus pancalus |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Baim |
LC |
|
41 |
Zig-zag Eel |
Mastacembelus armatus |
(Lacepede, 1800) |
Baam |
LC |
|
17. Family Synbranchidae |
|||||
|
42 |
Cuchia |
Ophicthys cuchia |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Kuchia |
LC |
|
V. ORDER
ANABANTIFORMES |
|||||
|
18. Family Anabantidae |
|||||
|
43 |
Climbing Perch |
Anabas testudineus |
(Bloch, 1792) |
Kawai |
LC |
|
19. Family Osphronemidae |
|||||
|
44 |
Dwarf Gourami |
Trichogaster lalius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Khosti |
LC |
|
45 |
Banded Gourami |
Trichogaster fasciata |
(Bloch &
Schneider, 1801) |
Gourami |
LC |
|
20. Family Channidae |
|||||
|
46 |
Dwarf Snakehead |
Channa gachua |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Bothua |
LC |
|
47 |
Great Snakehead |
Channa marulius |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Pumuri |
LC |
|
48 |
Spotted Snakehead |
Channa punctata |
(Bloch, 1793) |
Phool-dhok |
LC |
|
49 |
Striped Snakehead |
Channa striata |
(Bloch, 1793) |
Soura |
LC |
|
21. Family Nandidae |
|||||
|
50 |
Gangetic Leaffish |
Nandus nandus |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Debari |
LC |
|
22. Family Badidae |
|||||
|
51 |
Badis |
Badis badis |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Badis |
LC |
|
VI. ORDER
GOBIFORMES |
|||||
|
23. Family Gobiidae |
|||||
|
52 |
Tank Goby |
Glossogobius giuris |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Tank goby |
LC |
|
VII. ORDER
CICHLIFORMES |
|||||
|
24. Family Cichlidae |
|||||
|
53 |
Nile Tilapia |
Oreochromis niloticus |
(Linnaeus, 1758) |
Tilapia |
Exotic |
|
VIII. ORDER
BELONIFORMES |
|||||
|
25. Family Belonidae |
|||||
|
54 |
Freshwater Garfish |
Xenentodon cancila |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Kauwa |
LC |
|
IX. ORDER
TETRAODONTIFORMES |
|||||
|
26. Family Tetraodontidae |
|||||
|
55 |
Ocellated
Pufferfish |
Leiodon cutcutia |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Pufferfish |
LC |
|
X. ORDER
PERCIFORMES |
|||||
|
27. Family Ambassidae |
|||||
|
56 |
Elongate Glass-perchlet |
Chanda nama |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Chanda |
LC |
|
57 |
Highfin Glassy-perchlet |
Parambassis lala |
(Hamilton, 1822) |
Lala |
LC |
LC—Least Concern |
EN—Endangered | VU—Vulnerable | NT—Near Threatened.
FOR
FIGURES & IMAGES - - CLICK HERE FOR FULL PDF
REFERENCES
Bleher, H. (2018). Indian
ornamental fishes, volume 1. Aquapress Publishers,
Miradolo Terme (PV), Italy. Pp 1–848.
Brink, P.T., T. Badura, A. Farmer & D. Russi (2012). The economics of ecosystem and biodiversity for
water and wetlands: a briefing note. Institute for European
Environmental Policy, London, 13 pp.
Dwivedi, A.K., R. Rana, R. Shukla, K. Sivakumar &
J.A. Johnson (2019). Status of fish diversity in the Ganga River, pp. 104–125. In:
Johnson, J.A., S.A. Hussain & R. Badola (eds.).
Biodiversity profile of Ganga River. Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, 125
pp.
Fricke, R., W.N. Eschmeyer
& R. van der Laan (2018). Catalog of fishes:
genera, species, references. California Academy of Sciences, San
Francisco, CA, USA. http://research.calacademy.org/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatman.asp>.
Accessed on 25 October 2021.
Ghermandi, A., J.C.J.M van Den
Bergh, L.M. Brander, H.L.F. de Groot & P.A.L.D. Nunes (2010). Values
of natural and human-made wetlands: a meta-analysis. Water
Resources Research 46(12): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009071
IUCN (2021). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2021-22. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed
on 25 October 2021.
Jayaram, K.C. (2010). The Freshwater Fishes
of the Indian Region. 2nd Edition. Narendra
Publishing House, Delhi, 616 pp.
Kumar, R.G., R. Charan,
N.P.K. Prasoon & V.S. Basheer (2021). Catfishes of the
genus Sperata (Pisces: Bagridae)
in India. Journal of Fish Biology 98(2): 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14590
Kingsford, R.T., A. Basset & L. Jackson (2016). Wetlands:
conservation’s poor cousins. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Freshwater Ecosystems 26(5): 892–916. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2709
McKinney, M.L. (2002). Urbanization,
Biodiversity, and Conservation: The impacts of urbanization on native
species are poorly studied, but educating a highly urbanised human population about these impacts can greatly
improve species conservation in all ecosystems. BioScience
52(10): 883–890. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0883:UBAC]2.0.CO;2
Ray, P. (1998). Ecological
Imbalance of the Ganga River System: Its Impact on Aquaculture. Daya Publishing House, Delhi, 241 pp.
Ramsar, P. (2013). The Ramsar Convention Manual: a guide to the Convention on
Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) Ramsar
Convention Secretariat, 110 pp.
Rodgers, W.A. & H.S. Panwar (1988). Planning a wildlife
protected area network in India. A report prepared for the Department of
Environment, Forests & Wildlife, Government of India. Wildlife Institute of
India, Dehradun.
Sarkar, U.K., A.K. Pathak, R.K. Sinha, K. Sivakumar,
A.K. Pandian, A. Pandey, V.K. Dubey & W.S. Lakra
(2012). Freshwater fish biodiversity in the River Ganga (India): changing
pattern, threats and conservation perspectives. Reviews in Fish Biology and
Fisheries 22: 251–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-011-9218-6
Schlosser, I.J. (1991). Stream fish ecology:
a landscape perspective. BioScience 41(10):
704–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311765
Sivakumar, K. (2007). Diversity,
conservation and sustainable use of fish resources of Banganga
wetland, Uttarakhand, India. Indian Forester 133(10): 1373–1380.
Talwar, P.K. & A.G. Jhingran
(1991). Inland Fishes of India and Adjacent Countries - Vol. I & II. Oxford
& IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1158 pp.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell & C.E.
Cushing (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37(1): 130–137. https://doi.org/10.1139/f80-017